Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Elamarna]

not bad!

but I have to ask-is this fish or ed stow??
I believe fish had posted a 31 point plan previous!!

I did wonder myself, but neither of them would play such games i am sure of that.

However the language and grammar used is very different from the other posts by Rainbow and indeed the comments before and after the plan.



In addition at one point rainbow posts "Our suggestion" suggesting a team effort or is this someone else s list reused?
Steve

[John Wheat]

A couple come close.. huh ?!

what a fair sentence coming from you.

so here for you are some points that can refresh your memory:



Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.



non make that cross over to probably ?!!!

how fair and anti-trolling indeed you are !

well congratulations for that "non"

Lechmere is a witness not a suspect and no matter how much bullshit you or anyone else writes that won't change. So unless you can find something that actually points to Lechmere I suggest you don't bother writing a load of crap about Lechmere a clearly innocent man.

[Elamarna]

A couple come close.. huh ?!

what a fair sentence coming from you.



Why from me?

I was not aware I had a reputation for not being fair the majority of the time?





so here for you are some points that can refresh your memory:



Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.



The killer was disturbed, be that by Lechmere or it was Lechmere.
The case is not proven either way.




Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.


Given the last point made in that statement, your point is?



Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.


That is pure superposition, on your part, guess work.



Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.


Not hear what precisely? It is not a given that one will hear another ahead of them in the street. individuals are just that individual



Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.


Yes and I have discussed this with Fisherman at length recently. I agree that he must have been close to the attack, that is all, the blood evidence is not precise enough to do more.



Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.



Nature does not work to precise timetables.
Bleeding times in particular are an area I have a very good background on from both a professional and personal viewpoint.




A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.


But are you not suggesting that the attack took 3 mintues and then there was a further 3 minutes until Paul arrived:


"before the sudden attack of Lechmere which last for another 3 minutes minimum, then 3 minutes till Paul come close... and she was still bleeding by the feet of Lechmere..."



so according to your own reckoning that is a total of 12 minutes from the time the attack starts until Mizen arrives.




Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.



yes and of course that is not a case against Lechmere


Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

yes it can be argued so, argument alone does not prove a point

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.

Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.


Yes he might, and again he might not, no case is proven, it is an opinion.




"Our Suggestion" have you written thuis list yourself Rainbow, or is it someone else s. ?



Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?



Probably and don't exaggerate there are not thousands and thousands of street in the area concerned, which is not the whole East End but a small area of it.



Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?


The TOD in some is debatable- Chapman and Kelly,
The same argument would apply to many others too, so the answer is probably.


Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?

If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.


No it is a possible link, it would need far more to make it a strong argument

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?



Having lived in an area is not proof of a crime


Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.




If, if, if, none of which is proof, it is opinion. yes go ahead and argue such, just possibilities


Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.



Kelly may have been early, it is often debated, and Chapmans TOD is hotly debated.



Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.



It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.



yes it can be argued.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?



Cross was also a name he was entitled to use, being the name of his step father, a former police officer.
It can be reasonably argued that he Lechmere may have been known to the police as the son on a former police officer and in such circumstances the name Cross may have been used.

If another name had been used the case would be far stronger against




Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.


Not proof of committing a crime



Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.




Which proves absolutely nothing,

We really seem to be using the "throw enough muck" technique here


Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.


Which they did, and spoke to Mizen. So they did raise the alarm.



Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.




This is debated hotly, some believe Mizen lied to cover up his slow response.
Others that Lechmere had seen a Policeman, go look at what Pierre says.

And those like me who think it is a simple misunderstanding on the part of both.




Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

I certainly do not know and neither do you Rainbow, one can surmise that is it, again even if he did, that does not mean he killed anyone.




Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?


That is an opinion, people do not want to be involved in court cases, it is still the case, such does not make one guilty of any crime


Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?


If the neck is cut you get a lot of blood very quickly. it was dark!



Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.


we do not know which route he normally took, and have no way of knowing so

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?

That is not proof of guilt, the same is true of kosminski!


Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?


was he asked?


Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Yes, this continual mentioning of quickest routes proves nothing, how do we know what route a man would take?



Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?


Yes

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

your point?

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning.


So we do not have a defintive start time


It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?



people do not walk at set rates, nor do you have any idea at all of his walking speed that day.
Timings such as presented while logical can be out by a minute or two either way.

In addition just because Paul says it was 3.45 exactly it does not mean it was, the issue of time keeping and recording in the LVP as been discussed over and over again.
we already know lechmere is not sure of the time he left that day, but states he was late, normally leaving at 3.20.

The reality is that it only takes both to be inaccurate buy a few minutes, despite what both believed the time was, and the apparent discrepancy you claim is not one at all


Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.


If Paul and Lechmere both say they were together why should we not accept that, who actually spoke to Mizen is a different matter



non make that cross over to probably ?!!!

No, most of the above is an exercise in throwing as as many ideas as possible, some with possible links which may need further investigation, some not; and hoping it sticks.



how fair and anti-trolling indeed you are !
well congratulations for that "non"

Last week I posted the following :

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=397451&postcount=313

Please read what was said, and see I was not and am not ruling anything out.

However posts like this DO NOT HELP THE Case IN FAVOUR AT ALL




Please tell me what I have done to upset you so much?

All these supposed conclusive points which I answer, you may not like the answers but i answer.

Could this all be to avoid you answering the questions you were asked?



regards



Steve

[Harry D]

Well
Also Hutch was engaging in stalking behavior, had no real excuse for being there, and conveniently shows up right after the inquest is over.

He makes a much better suspect than lech imho.

If it's a fact that Hutchinson was there that night, and he knew the victim, I would tend to agree with you. It's a shame that we don't know more about Hutchinson's life before or after the murders.

[Abby Normal]

A couple come close.. huh ?!

what a fair sentence coming from you.

so here for you are some points that can refresh your memory:



Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.



non make that cross over to probably ?!!!

how fair and anti-trolling indeed you are !

well congratulations for that "non"

not bad!

but I have to ask-is this fish or ed stow??
I believe fish had posted a 31 point plan previous!!

[Columbo]

A couple come close.. huh ?!

what a fair sentence coming from you.

so here for you are some points that can refresh your memory:



Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.



non make that cross over to probably ?!!!

how fair and anti-trolling indeed you are !

well congratulations for that "non"

Wow you spent alot of time watching that documentary didn't you! So since this has been discussed since 2014 and more recently on another thread just a few days ago maybe you should check that out as well. That way no one has to repeat themselves. Nice Job.

Columbo

[Rainbow]

Abby,

Yes, not one of them for me is anything more than a possible, none make that cross over to probably.

A couple come close, but we are missing data.


Steve

A couple come close.. huh ?!

what a fair sentence coming from you.

so here for you are some points that can refresh your memory:



Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmere´s fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didn´t. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a cat´s meat woman, and his children opened a cat´s meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.



non make that cross over to probably ?!!!

how fair and anti-trolling indeed you are !

well congratulations for that "non"

[Elamarna]

exactly
even though I favor Blotchy and hutch-
ALL the candidates are weak, some just less weak than others.

Abby,

Yes, not one of them for me is anything more than a possible, none make that cross over to probably.

A couple come close, but we are missing data.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

I love the "H's a better suspect than ....." (not just by crossites), so what. Best of a bad bunch doesn't prove Jack.

exactly
even though I favor Blotchy and hutch-
ALL the candidates are weak, some just less weak than others.

[John Wheat]

I love the "H's a better suspect than ....." (not just by crossites), so what. Best of a bad bunch doesn't prove Jack.

Lechmere is not the best of a bad bunch. In no way is a random witness the best suspect. Just because he found body allegedly shortly after the victim died does in no way make him the strongest suspect.

[GUT]

I love the "H's a better suspect than ....." (not just by crossites), so what. Best of a bad bunch doesn't prove Jack.

[Rainbow]

Tsk tsk at Lynn and co for not letting us have any fun in this kind of thread and fighting the poll question.

Lechmere can be absolutely and without a doubt placed at a murder scene, which is not true of any other suspect we generally discuss.

at a murder scene.. while the victim was still bleeding, at the time of death too

I don't care if he has one child or eleven, I don't care if he gave his real name or a false one, I don't care if he has a motive or not, if he lived happily ever after or not.....he is the prime suspect till he clear himself infront of a court

thank you Damaso and Abby for being rational

[Damaso Marte]

Tsk tsk at Lynn and co for not letting us have any fun in this kind of thread and fighting the poll question.

Lechmere can be absolutely and without a doubt placed at a murder scene, which is not true of any other suspect we generally discuss. This statement is not meant to propose that Lechmere was the Ripper, but rather to demonstrate the parlous state of the case against the known suspects. Lechmere's candidacy suffers from defects other than not being known to have been at a murder scene.

Hutchinson might be wide-awake man, or might be a complete fabulist.

[Columbo]

>>forget about me, go and try to build a case against a mad jew ... etc.<<

Better still forget trying to pin the murders on anybody and just learn about the people and the times, which the really interesting stuff.

I couldn't agree more. The "Pin the Murder on the latest Suspect" has grown tiresome.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>>forget about me, go and try to build a case against a mad jew ... etc.<<

Better still forget trying to pin the murders on anybody and just learn about the people and the times, which the really interesting stuff.